IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.7756 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.02.2025 Rajendrasingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen @ Rajindersingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This is the 2^nd petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in complaint No.NACT-15867 of 2017 dated 09.10.2017, titled as “India Infoline vs Rajendra Singh. Further prayer has been made to quash the FIR No.2027 dated 02.12.2022 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram (Annexure P-4), all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom and to stay the operation of the order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-3).

2. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.02.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner under reference of contract/prospect No.709532, availed a loan from complainant/respondent No.2, agreeing to the terms and conditions of the same, including ECS payments from his bank account. However, due to certain issues, the petitioner was unable to maintain the required balance in his bank account, resulting in dishonor of an installment amounting to Rs.1,77,988/-, which led to issuance of a legal notice by the complainant/respondent No.2 to the petitioner, followed by a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the NI Act’). Consequently, the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person vide order dated 02.09.2022, and the FIR (supra) under Section 174-A IPC was registered against him.

4. Learned counsel further submits that before the declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, no publication notice was issued to him and the learned trial Court has wrongly passed the order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), however, the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant/respondent No.2 already withdrew the complaint pending before the learned trial Court on

15.04.2023.

5. In light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no purpose in continuing the prosecution under Section 174-A IPC qua the petitioner. He further submits that the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings are now redundant, and therefore, prayed for quashing of FIR (supra) and all other proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and has not disputed the factual position.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

9. Section 174-A of the IPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), classifying this provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. to exclude Section 174-A IPC from its scope. The proposition that Section 174-A IPC is governed by the procedure as laid out in Section 195 Cr.P.C., is further supported by the fact that Section 174-A IPC and the corresponding Section 209 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which mirrors Section 195 of Cr.P.C. In its present form, thus, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. clearly encompasses Section 174-A IP